Do you ever think that Evangelical Christians try to turn the Bible into something it never intended for itself? Most Christian's doctrine of the Bible includes the word "inerrancy", but what is actually meant by that, and can the Bible stand up the definition attached to the word?
Wayne Grudem says that "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
I have to admit, I have problems with such a definition. The Bible seems to have problems with it too. Take the events surrounding Holy week for example. According to John 12, Jesus was anointed in Bethany on a Saturday. According to Matthew 26, Jesus was anointed in Bethany on Wednesday. One or both of these witnesses is affirming something contrary to fact.
Now according to Grudem, we can happily say that in the original manuscripts no such discrepancy existed, but to me that just sounds like a cop out; it sounds like someone trying to fit the Bible into a mould that it never intended for itself. You may think I'm opening a can of worms here - If we can't trust the Bible with one piece of information, then why should we trust any of it? If it errs in its witness to the events of Holy Week, then surely nothing else affirmed in the Gospel accounts can be said to be reliable
I don't claim to have sufficient answers to those questions, but one important thing to remember is that our trust is never -- never! -- to be placed in the Bible. Not once does Scripture seek us to put our faith in it. Scripture is always pointing away from itself, and more specifically, towards a person - The Messiah Jesus. The Word of God has indeed become flesh, and our lives should be wrapped up in Christ. Only then will we truly understand what is written on the pages of our Bibles. But make no mistake about it - owning a Bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian. You don't even have to ever read a Bible in your life in order to be included in God's covenant family. I say this confidently because there are people in the world who simply cannot read for one reason or another. Are they therefore exluded from God's offer of grace? Certainly not! That's not to say that we can all just toss our Bible's into a dustbin. If a year in Scripture School taught me anything, it's the richness and benefit of deep meditation on the Bible. But as soon as your faith gets wrapped up in a book, you're in trouble.
Where then does that leave the Bible as the Word of God? There can be no falsehood in God, so when He speaks, He speaks truth. This is where Grudem's claim of inerrancy is based. Word of God = inerrant, Bible = Word of God, => Bible = Inerrant
I'm not saying I fundamentally disagree with that line of reasoning, but what I wonder is the following: Are John and Matthew's accounts of all of the events surrounding Holy Week part of the Word of God? When Jesus is said to be the Word incarnate, does He embody John's witness of what happened on the Saturday of Holy Week and Matthew's witness of what happened on the Wednesday? What does a dinner in Bethany have to do with anything, and is it of crucial importance to the integrity of Jesus (and the Bible) that John and Matthew's Gospels allign perfectly in all of the details?
As I showed above, they don't, and there are other examples I could cite to strengthen that position. Perhaps Grudem addresses this in Systematic Theology in a more satisfactory way than saying the original manuscripts contained no such discrepancies, but if not then where does that leave us? Do we simply fall in line with Grudem, or are we forced to disregard everything that is written in the Bible and pretty much abandon the Christian faith entirely? Personally, I'm not content to do either. Not because I'm a renegade who's "soft on Scripture", nor because I'm choosing to hold blindly to Jesus and scream "la la la la" at everyone who points out inerrancy in the Bible to me. There must be a third option, right? A position where the integrity of Scripture is highly valued, and where the Bible as God's words to human beings -- Scripture as "God-breathed" -- is rightly understood.
Finally, how are we understand Paul's words in 1 Cor 7? He says that this is him speaking, not the Lord. But then if these words are in our Bibles, shouldn't we understand them as God's words? Paul didn't seem to think so, so where does that leave us?
It leaves me asking too many questions, but perhaps I can address some of them over the coming weeks/months/years.
Wayne Grudem says that "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
I have to admit, I have problems with such a definition. The Bible seems to have problems with it too. Take the events surrounding Holy week for example. According to John 12, Jesus was anointed in Bethany on a Saturday. According to Matthew 26, Jesus was anointed in Bethany on Wednesday. One or both of these witnesses is affirming something contrary to fact.
Now according to Grudem, we can happily say that in the original manuscripts no such discrepancy existed, but to me that just sounds like a cop out; it sounds like someone trying to fit the Bible into a mould that it never intended for itself. You may think I'm opening a can of worms here - If we can't trust the Bible with one piece of information, then why should we trust any of it? If it errs in its witness to the events of Holy Week, then surely nothing else affirmed in the Gospel accounts can be said to be reliable
I don't claim to have sufficient answers to those questions, but one important thing to remember is that our trust is never -- never! -- to be placed in the Bible. Not once does Scripture seek us to put our faith in it. Scripture is always pointing away from itself, and more specifically, towards a person - The Messiah Jesus. The Word of God has indeed become flesh, and our lives should be wrapped up in Christ. Only then will we truly understand what is written on the pages of our Bibles. But make no mistake about it - owning a Bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian. You don't even have to ever read a Bible in your life in order to be included in God's covenant family. I say this confidently because there are people in the world who simply cannot read for one reason or another. Are they therefore exluded from God's offer of grace? Certainly not! That's not to say that we can all just toss our Bible's into a dustbin. If a year in Scripture School taught me anything, it's the richness and benefit of deep meditation on the Bible. But as soon as your faith gets wrapped up in a book, you're in trouble.
Where then does that leave the Bible as the Word of God? There can be no falsehood in God, so when He speaks, He speaks truth. This is where Grudem's claim of inerrancy is based. Word of God = inerrant, Bible = Word of God, => Bible = Inerrant
I'm not saying I fundamentally disagree with that line of reasoning, but what I wonder is the following: Are John and Matthew's accounts of all of the events surrounding Holy Week part of the Word of God? When Jesus is said to be the Word incarnate, does He embody John's witness of what happened on the Saturday of Holy Week and Matthew's witness of what happened on the Wednesday? What does a dinner in Bethany have to do with anything, and is it of crucial importance to the integrity of Jesus (and the Bible) that John and Matthew's Gospels allign perfectly in all of the details?
As I showed above, they don't, and there are other examples I could cite to strengthen that position. Perhaps Grudem addresses this in Systematic Theology in a more satisfactory way than saying the original manuscripts contained no such discrepancies, but if not then where does that leave us? Do we simply fall in line with Grudem, or are we forced to disregard everything that is written in the Bible and pretty much abandon the Christian faith entirely? Personally, I'm not content to do either. Not because I'm a renegade who's "soft on Scripture", nor because I'm choosing to hold blindly to Jesus and scream "la la la la" at everyone who points out inerrancy in the Bible to me. There must be a third option, right? A position where the integrity of Scripture is highly valued, and where the Bible as God's words to human beings -- Scripture as "God-breathed" -- is rightly understood.
Finally, how are we understand Paul's words in 1 Cor 7? He says that this is him speaking, not the Lord. But then if these words are in our Bibles, shouldn't we understand them as God's words? Paul didn't seem to think so, so where does that leave us?
It leaves me asking too many questions, but perhaps I can address some of them over the coming weeks/months/years.
No comments:
Post a Comment